This High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging a 1979 Land Tribunal order for grant of land by the principle of delay and laches, dismissing the petition without examining merits due to the enormous lapse of time since the order was passed.
The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches; costs were not awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.8726 OF 2016 (LR-SEC 48A)
BETWEEN:
6.MRS. GIRIJA W/O BASAVA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
2
3
(PETITIONER NO.1 TO 22 ARE RESIDENTS OF ESARUMUDI MAKKIMANE, YADADI MATHYADI GRAMA AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 222.)
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI LATHA S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SESHU V, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN LRY-97-159-TRI-77-78 ON THE FILE OF R-1; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.21.4.1979 IN LRY-97-159TRI-3201-77-78 PASSED BY R-1 ONLY WITH RESPECT TO SY.NO.172/2 [NEW SY.NO.174/4] MEASURING 1 ACRE 90
4
CENTS SITUATED AT YADADI MATHYADI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT [ANNEX-A].
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the Land Tribunal order dated 21.04.1979, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A whereby, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal has granted only 50% of the land in Sy.No.172/2 of the said village when claim was for the entire land in the survey number.
5
Land Tribunal and the learned private counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, ie., the so called ‘rival claimant’, oppose the Writ Petition inter alia on the ground that the impugned order is dated 21.4.1979 and the Writ Petition is presented to this court only on 15.02.2006 and thus, there is an enormous delay of decades; there being no plausible explanation offered for the delay brooked, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay & latches itself.
6
claims would have arisen, had there been a rival claim in respect of the very same land. So contending, both the learned HCGP and the private counsel seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.
(a) The Land Tribunal made the impugned order on 21.04.1979 and the writ petition is filed only on 15.02.2016. Pleadings too are casually drawn. Form No.10 was issued to the petitioners on 2.8.1982. Similarly Form was issued to the 2nd respondent on 28.9.1983; admittedly, petitioners mutation of entries were made way back in the year 1983 itself. 2nd respondents’ mutation of entries accordingly was made way back in the year 1992; this fact matrix constitutes enormous delay brooked in approaching the Writ Court. Makers of the Constitution did not prescribe any limitation period for presenting the Writ Petition, is true; however, this does not mean the stale
7
claims should be entertained by the Writ Courts, more particularly, when there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the decades of delay brooked in the matter.
(b) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that her clients have mortgaged the entire property and obtained loan, is too feeble a justification inasmuch as what is mortgaged is the land in respect of which occupancy has been granted to them and not the land in respect of which occupancy has been accorded to 2nd respondent herein. If there were to be a mortgage
even in respect of land belonging to 2nd respondent, that would have been a case of fraud on him perpetrated by the petitioners. Therefore, this contention does not come to the aid of petitioners. The constitutional courts do not come to the aid of tardy and sleepy. Evidenciary material evaporates by the long lapse of time and memory of witnesses too fade vide TILOKCHAND MOTICHAND vs. H.B.MUNSHI , AIR 1970 SC 898.
8
(c) The second contention of petitioners that Rule 17(6) of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 provides for clubbing of contemporaneous applications and their joint consideration and this having not been done, the impugned order is liable to be voided, is bit difficult to countenance. This Rule speaks of rival claims in respect of the ‘very same land’ and not the very same survey number. When the claim of petitioners was for only 1/2 of the land in the subject survey number, the other ½ having been claimed by the 2nd respondent herein, there is absolutely no justification for invoking the provisions of this Rule. Therefore, the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in B.S.Parashivaiah supra, hardly comes to her aid.
(d) Though several contentions have been taken up
in the petition and urged on the floor of Court for invalidating the impugned order, the same need not be looked into, the threshold bar of delay & latches having not been overcome. Justice of the case warrants dismissal of the writ petition.
9
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits, fails, costs having been made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
cbc
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a 1979 Land Tribunal order filed nearly three decades later in 2016 can be entertained in the absence of any explanation for the delay.
Whether the impugned order violating Rule 17(6) of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 (clubbing of claims) requires quashing when the claims were for different halves of the same land.
Whether the writ court should examine the merits of the claim regarding the irregular granting of land coverage given the threshold bar of delay and latches.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S.Parashivaiah vs. State and othersDistinguished¶46
B.S.Parashivaiah vs. State and others (2003) 5 KLJ 503
Tilokchand Motichand vs. H.B.MunshiExplained¶58
Tilokchand Motichand vs. H.B.Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr Bhaskar and others
The Special Land Tribunal, Kundapura
Mr Subbaiah
Krishna S.Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
